ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Mistress
Info source? Where in the galaxy, in Star Trek or reality, does a mistress have a 'legal' relationship with a man, as stated in the article?--31dot 20:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC) :I thought we already told this guy about this with the concubine article — Morder 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I think we did. I'll simplify this somewhat.--31dot 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) ::Erm, where in galaxy, in Star Trek or reality did i write that a mistress has a legal right to a man? What i wrote was: UNLIKE a concubine, a mistress has NO LEGAL relationship to the man. (See?) Check this out for yourselves in the history log. As for a concubines legal rights, I have written my thesis on concubinage in Turkey. The concubine is a semi formal "wife" of lower status as I tried to point out. As the concubine article is now, it is slightly ""wrong". If you don't trust me, then at least trust Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. However, I am not here to quarrel, do what you want. No need to ridicule guys;-) :Whether or not you what you've written is correct or not is meaningless because in Star Trek the legality of a mistress vs. a concubine hasn't been established and therefore is speculation. You don't know that in Star Trek a concubine has legal rights and you also don't know that in star trek a mistress doesn't have legal rights. Who knows that in the future or in different cultures the definition hasn't changed? We don't know so we can just make stuff up. — Morder 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ::True, but why would the makers of Star Trek use words we all know and give them a different meaning? It doesn't make any sense. Then we might as well distrust that blue means blue, or human means human. I personally think they have enough work making up new stories without adhering new meaning to words and then not bother to explain their new meaning. Pretty puzzling to me, at least. And of course, why then, according to your own statement above, do we assume that a concubine is a woman in a relationship with a man with NO prospect of marriage? We don't know this in the Star Trek Universe, either, we just assume. You just flat out told me that the legality of a mistress vs. a concubine that hasn't been established in the Star Trek Universe, and therefore is speculation. Ergo, the definition you use right now is just as much speculation as the one I provided, and that one was at least based on a current definition from Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. The other one; in your own word, is simply on speculation. And in fact, didn't Sirellas foremother actually marry in the end? I seem to have read that somewhere. (Might be wrong.) Furthermore, by linking to external sources that backs up my definition, not the one currently used on memory alpha, you must understand that in a way you validate the current definition of the word even though it isn't Star Trek canon? So you see, if we don't trust words, where does that leave us? *Marianne* :This is a Star Trek encyclopedia and not a general one so we have decided long ago to only include information presented in Star Trek otherwise we would have plenty of information that just doesn't need to be in this place. We're not a dictionary, we're a Star Trek Encyclopedia that only deals in what was seen/heard on Star Trek. That's it. Anything beyond that is pointless and could be written on wikipedia or other such site. If we did that here we'd have articles pages with no real information relating to Star Trek. Also, in response to writers using words and giving them different meanings...it's simple. A mistress is not always a lover/adulteress example: ::mistress: a woman master who directs the work of others ::mistress: a woman, specifically one with control, authority or ownership :So...as used in the episode where Worf and Jadzia got married. The mistress is the lady of the house and not some lover who isn't married. That doesn't sound like the first definition you gave on this site. Since the legality of the other definition in the future is suspect and not stated you can't include it. Plain and simple. That is why we can only use what was given in Star Trek. Since I didn't modify your article I cannot comment on the current state of this article and it looks like they just rewrote what you wrote to be more concise instead of being a long winded description better suited for wikipedia and not a star trek encyclopedia...anyway...it's over with and done. — Morder 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :Please read and policies as to what is allowed on this site before you continue this discussion. — Morder 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I am not going to turn this into a discussion of personal honor, merely comment that I know that a mistress is also the lady of a household, it was I who included it in my second draft, so yes, I am aware of this. But it was you who first brought up the definition concerning concubine and said we didn't know whether or not the word meant the same in S.T, yet you/someone define it quite easily on THIS site, and not according to either canon/dictionaries. The point I tried to convey is that you, the administrators, have already included definitions that are not canon, in other titles here on this site; specifically consort and concubine. There should be some sort of consensus amongst the administrators, and at the moment there isn't. Shran replied to another user that the word consort should be used according to current dictionary.com definitions, and I personally, agree with him (see his discussion page) You say this is suspect and not stated and can't be included, yet it has been included and approved in the other two articles by other administrators on this site. That is a direct contradiction to what has been written on THIS discussion page. I am NOT trying to get THIS page reverted to my first draft, I am quite happy with it the way it is now. I first wrote down my thoughts here because 31dot actually misquoted me in the beginning, and I wanted to comment on that. But by doing so, I think I have made a contribution you ought to give some thought: You should have a talk with the other administrators about the definition of titles. You must agree, after loking at the other titles i mentioned that there is no consensus when it comes to word definitions on this site. None are based on canon, yet two of them are taken for granted (that the meaning is the same as it is today) One word, concubine, is not defined right in either sense. I know I should probably have put this on either Shrans page or on the consort discussion page, but since the discussion started here, this is where I chose to put it. I hope you will take this up with the other administrators, I am not interested in further involvement in this discussion, but I hope you won't just dismiss what I have pointed out just because of this discussion. Just some food for thought. Peace and long life - Marianne PNA-incomplete Missing references: * * * * * --Alan 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)